Taking The Path of Most Resistance: The Virtues

I am blogging only intermittently as I am pretty focused on reading, talking to people, and generally fretting, worrying, and trying to structure the book on scaling constructive action that Huggy Rao and I are trying to write. I have been reading everything from psychological experiments on how different metaphors affect our perceptions and action, to studies of the mathematical and administrative challenges of scaling computer systems, to research on cities of different sizes (especially some interesting stuff that suggests bigger is better). But the area where scaling has been studied perhaps most directly is in education, including studies of how to replicate great charter schools and how to substitute effective practices for ineffective practices in large school systems.

This weekend, I read an old (1993) but excellent study commissioned by the Casey foundation on what it takes comprehensive school reform in large school systems. I was taken with its counter-intuitive title "The Path of Most Resistance" (see the PDF here), in part, because it ran counter to some of the (evidence-based) assumptions that we have developed about scaling, including the notion that scaling depends on finding ways to simplify things and reduce cognitive load on people, and the notion that changes that are consistent with local cultures and traditions are easier to implement than those that run counter to embedded beliefs.

As I read the report, however, I realized that the authors agreed with some of these points, as they weren't arguing that leaders should TRY to make things harder on themselves, but rather, to do large scale change right, there argument was that a lot of very hard things need to get done. They argued that taking the easy way out -- expecting instant results; not taking the time to engage with parents, students, administrators, local politicians and other key crucial actors; doing it on the cheap; expecting everything to go smoothly-- and a host other "easy solutions -- simply weren't realistic or wise for would-be change agents. The examples of successful large scale change they examined all took pretty much the opposite approach -- there was a lot of patience and a long term perspective, time was taken to involve major constituencies, lots of resources were devoted to the effort, and a host of other tactics that entailed doing things the hard way rather than the easy way.

More broadly, I think it is intriguing to use their title to flip assumptions about change. Sometimes the tougher road is the better road, as people go in with a more realistic mindset, they are ready for setbacks, and expect to spend the time and money necessary. And, as an added bonus, any social psychologist will tell you that the more effort and sacrifice people make toward something, the more committed they will be to it. Indeed, as I watch successful innovators -- ranging from the teams we teach at Stanford's design school to Pixar's amazing journey -- the most successful tend to have this "it is going to be tough, but I can and will do it" mindset.

On the other hand, I think there is an important caveat, one the Jeff Pfeffer and I have written about inHard Facts. One of the impediments to successful change is that people use the belief that "it is difficult and takes a long time" to avoid trying to make necessary changes at all. Or, worse yet, they propose a long-term change process, but only start working on it just before the "due date" -- perhaps proposing a two-year project, but doing all the work in the final months (much like my students who, even though I assign a paper months in advance, don't start it until the night before). In addition, there are many constructive changes that are not difficult and do not take a long time -- such as changing small rules or procedures, experimenting with a new and delimited program, and so on. Unfortunately, all too often, large scale change is slowed or stopped because people delay or fail to complete the array of small and easy steps required to accomplish any large change (In other words, they fail to focus on the daily small wins).

Finally, there is an old but interesting lesson in creative thinking here, one consistent with the notion of "having strong opinions, weakly held." The challenges of doing successful change look a lot different when you assume that "taking the path of least resistance" is best versus assuming that "taking the path of most resistance" is best. Indeed, although they are pretty much exact opposites, you can learn a lot about change when you look for conditions under which each statement is true and false. More generally, a good way to spark creativity is to take your most dearly held assumptions and ask "suppose the opposite were true?"

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well good top know that the authors agreed with some of these points, as they weren't arguing that leaders should TRY to make things harder on themselves, but rather, to do large scale change right, there argument was that a lot of very hard things need to get done.

Really nice one..worth to read..The challenges of doing successful change look a lot different when you assume that "taking the path of least resistance" is best versus assuming that "taking the path of most resistance" is best.

I think the path of least resistance gets the task accomplished, but the harder path builds capacity along the way. As in most polarities, both are important and require each other for ultimate success. If something is easy for us, it may represent expertise we need to help us with the hard part. Focusing only on the most resistance will burn us out,just as in building a muscle too much exertion without rest will result in injury.

This is a very interesting post. I too really like the title of the article.

We work extensively we performance improvement initiatives in the privagte sectors. Following all of the neuroscience research on positive imagery strong impact on performance, we always position our work as achieving "greatness" in a function.

What is interesting is that people are consistently unwilling to give time to practicing for becoming great (i.e. the path of most resistance). We ask them a series of questions, with a telling result:

1. Would you expect a world class athlete to work hard to be great? Of course, the answer is "yes."
2 What about a world class musician? Again the answer is yes.
3. What about a world class manager,teacher, marketer, -- whatever the function that is the focus of the improvement? Here people know they should say yes, but just can't bring themselves to say it.

Ultimately what emerges is that people want a Twitter version of greatness...the easy path, when the reality is that greatness only comes by commitment to work really hard at something -- the path of most resistance.

I had a client (Fortune 10 company) that set a target of 16 months to accomplish something most companies took 18. They made it. When I asked the exec sponsor if he was pleased, he shared that everyone sat around for a year then put it in gear for 4 months. [The student syndrome: ask for more time to complete an assignment, but fail to start immediately because the extension means there's enough time.] While I agree that enabling success via small steps is important, bold goals generate focus, energy, and commitment to create what's often thought to be impossible.